March 25, 2009

Dorothy King on Greek homosexuality

PhDiva Dorothy King has just deleted my comments (and one of her own) on her blog post, in which she states:

I love movies, but I sometimes worry that the general public gets a few odd ideas about the ancients from them.

For example in '300' the Spartans dismiss the Athenians for - and I may be paraphrasing - liking little boys. Actually ... whilst many Athenian men seem to have been bisexual, the Spartans institutionalized it as part of their military training and it played a more important role in their society. Greek 'naughty' vases with inscriptions almost all speak of the love of one man for another, and most of those great macho Greek warriors probably slept with more men than they did women given that access to women was limited.

In my response, I cited ancient sources only, yet PhDiva claims that:

I really can't be bothered to deal with 'all Greeks were heterosexual' propaganda by someone advocating using 300 as a source so have deleted a few comments.

This statement is false on two grounds: (i) I did not use "300" as a source; I contested King's criticism thereof on the basis of ancient sources, (ii) I certainly did not claim that "all Greeks were heterosexual", I contested her idea that the Spartans had institutionalized homosexuality, or that homosexuality was generally accepted by the ancient Greeks.

Here are the sources I cited, and which Ms. King has thought merited deletion. In the first one, I disputed King's presentation of homosexuality in Greek vases.

Reviewed by Keith DeVries, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania (kdevries@sas.upenn.edu).

[...]

Kilmer's deliberately narrow focus is an aspect of an overall carefulness of definition and rigor of study which produce solid results. A surprise to him wasthe relatively low number of male homosexual scenes of copulation: 13 to 15, as opposed to 82 heterosexual ones or, put another way, 18% of the total (using the higher figure).He had expected a stronger showing of the homosexual theme, "given the view scholarship has taken over the last century or so" (p. 173). While, as he says, "we must be cautious how we interpret this," his proportion is in line with that of a theme of red-figure vase painting he doesn't take up, the erotic pursuits by deities, which have been collected by Sophia Kaempf-Dimitriadou in her book Die Liebe der Götter in der attischen Kunst des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (1979). Of her 393 vase paintings, 14% have a male homosexual content, in the form of gods pursuing mortal adolescents. The finding also is in line with Attic comedies and the extant and known tragedies and satyr plays, where male-female sexuality is the norm, but male homoeroticism not unknown, occasionally being in fact at the dramatic center (as in Aeschylus' The Myrmidons, Euripides' Chrysippos, and presumably Sophokles' satyr play The Erastai of Achilles).

In the second, I disputed her claim of institutionalized Spartan homosexuality as part of the education system. Xenophon (5-4th c. BC writer) wrote:

This passage directly contradicts the idea of institutionalized Spartan homosexuality. So the idea about the Spartans abhorring "boy-love" is supported by the ancient sources and is not as "odd" as Ms. King apparently thinks.

King referred (in her own deleted comment) to Aelius [sic], and Plutarch, authors who postdate Xenophon by half a millennium or more. One has to wonder if Xenophon or these authors are more reliable sources about the state of Spartan society in the 5th c. BC, i.e., the setting of the "300". Would one rely on the attitudes of modern Manhattan residents towards homosexuality to infer the attitudes of early American colonists?

However, even these authors contradict her claim of a sexual nature to the mentoring relationship in Sparta. Aelian:and Plutarch on the ancient Spartan customs:

Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life.

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves.

If the Spartans, or indeed any substantial subset of Greeks "openly approved of male loves", then it is strange indeed that Aristotle would use the Celts as an example.

Furthermore, I cited Diodorus Siculus who makes the comparison more explicit:

The men are much keener on their own sex; they lie around on animal skins and enjoy themselves, with a lover on each side. The extraordinary thing is they haven’t the smallest regard for their personal dignity or self-respect; they offer themselves to other men without the least compunction. Furthermore, this isn’t looked down on, or regarded in any way disgraceful…

Diodorus is surprised at this proclivity. Whether or not his account is true, the passage shows that he apparently did not think that male homosexuality was neutral or even positive.

Perhaps Ms. King is better suited to writing fruit cake recipes, than to serious evidence-based discussion of ancient Greece, for which she obviously has no stomach.

PS: Or, perhaps she can write another book on Greek homosexuality, since her last one on the Elgin Marbles wasn't exactly well-received.

30 comments:

Eighteen or 14% of depicted couplings still seems pretty high by modern standards, though.

What of the Athenians? Do you believe that they institutionalized homosexuality as part of their education system? That's what I learned in college, but your knowledge is probably deeper on the subject than mine.

Eighteen or 14% of depicted couplings still seems pretty high by modern standards, though.

I don't know how we might measure this; perhaps compare with a figure of the homo- vs. heterosexual porn business today? In any case, the figure is small.

What of the Athenians? Do you believe that they institutionalized homosexuality as part of their education system? That's what I learned in college, but your knowledge is probably deeper on the subject than mine.

The Athenians had laws to protect children and proscribed the death penalty to those who had sex with children. Aeschines' Against Timarchus is a good place to start on the subject. Plato too, whose Symposium is often quoted as celebrating homosexuality, proposes severe measures against it in his Laws.

I do not know if Dorothy King intentionally deleted your comment or not (since she also deleted, you say, one of her own), but your PS is a cheap shot and unworthy of your argument.

If there is a way to delete three of my comments (and one of her own) unintentionally, I'd like to know about it.

She does answer your lost comment in a new comment of her own, above all citing Paul Cartledge.

How gracious of her to "answer" me after misrepresenting my argument and removing my comments.

For what it's worth, I think Cartledge is right about Xenophon's bias. He has form.

What sort of bias would prompt Xenophon to misrepresent Spartan attitudes to pederasty?

As I said in my -now deleted- response to King's comment, suppose that Xenophon misrepresented Spartan pederasty because he was a laconizer who wanted to paint an idealized portrait of Spartan society.

First of all, this would prove that pederasty wasn't generally accepted in Xenophon's audience, because why would one distort the facts if pederasty was the norm?

Moreover, if Xenophon knew that pederasty was practiced in Sparta, and he was personally against it, why would he enroll his sons in the agoge? Not exactly what something one expects from someone who feels compelled to hide Spartan pederasty under the carpet.

You act like a child bucko!!!It's bad when someone is erasing your comments for no reason, ah?Well you did the same to me!NO, SORRY!YOU HAD A REASON!YOUR INCAPABILITY TO FACE ME IN THE INDOEUROPEAN ISSUE!AND YOUR FEAR THAT I WILL UNCOVER YOUR TRUE THEOCRATIC, CHAUVINIST ETHNOCENTRIC PROFILE!Hahahaha!You make me laugh!

[i]"The Athenians had laws to protect children and proscribed the death penalty to those who had sex with children. Aeschines' Against Timarchus is a good place to start on the subject. Plato too, whose Symposium is often quoted as celebrating homosexuality, proposes severe measures against it in his Laws."[/i]

The Athenians never had any laws against homosexuality or pederasty. Aeschines' Against Timarchus is about male prostitution and has nothing to do with homosexuality. You obviously have never read Aeschines' speech. As to ancient Greek attitudes towards homosexuality, some Greeks approved of it, even enthusiastically, whereas others disapproved of it. You're selective quotations prove nothing.

The Athenians had laws to protect children and proscribed the death penalty to those who had sex with children.

You are of course wrong (but I won't waste too much time, since you offer no actual facts or arguments).

Just a little addendum from the Symposium of Xenophon (8,34). Xenophon was a 5th-4th c. Athenian and clearly contrasts Theban with Athenian attitudes towards pederasty.

ἐκείνοις μὲν γὰρ ταῦτα νόμιμα, ἡμῖν δ᾽ ἐπονείδιστα

As for homosexuality, the general Greek attitude is one of disapproval. This is made evident e.g., by Aristotle citing the "Celts" as openly approving of male loves. If a large portion of Greeks approved of male loves, then why would he invoke the exotic Celts to make his point? Diodorus Siculus too is incredulous that Celtic men slept shamelessly with each other even though they had fine women in their country. Whether or not these stereotypes about Celts were true or not is irrelevant, as, by contrast, they reflect on negative Greek attitudes on the subject.

"Diodorus Siculus too is incredulous that Celtic men slept shamelessly with each other even though they had fine women in their country. Whether or not these stereotypes about Celts were true or not is irrelevant, as, by contrast, they reflect on negative Greek attitudes on the subject."

Again, you're selectively quoting sources that only support your false opinions on the subject. Some Greeks approved of homosexuality, whereas others did not. Some ancient Greek writers, such as Pseudo-Lucian, even praised and idealized homosexuality:

Marriage is a boon and a blessing to men when it meets with good fortune, while the love of boys, that pays court to the hallowed dues of friendship, I consider to be the privilege only of philosophy. Therefore all men should marry, but let only the wise be permitted to love boys, for perfect virtue grows least of all among women.

I don't get it. I keep getting a message after posting. I guess my comment is too long. I'll try again. I hope I'm not double posting:

Well, thanks for responding to my comment. The reason why I didn't go into too much detail was because I didn't think you would respond to my remarks, like so many other bloggers. Anyway, allow me to respond.

"The Athenians had laws to protect children and proscribed the death penalty to those who had sex with children.

You are of course wrong (but I won't waste too much time, since you offer no actual facts or arguments)."

No, you're the one who hasn't any legitimate arguments. The purpose of the aforementioned passage was to condemn the sexual exploitation of boys, which according to Aeschines, included pandering ("and surely he who hires, outrages"), in an attempt to bar Timarchus from serving in office because of his previous history as a catamite. Otherwise, even Aeschines admitted to being a homosexual pederast, however, unlike Timarchus, he did it for love, rather than money:

The distinction which I draw is this: to be in love with those who are beautiful and chaste is the experience of a kind-hearted and generous soul; but to hire for money and to indulge in licentiousness is the act of a man who is wanton and ill-bred.

"Just a little addendum from the Symposium of Xenophon (8,34). Xenophon was a 5th-4th c. Athenian and clearly contrasts Theban with Athenian attitudes towards pederasty."

This clearly ignores the fact that even Xenophon recognized that there was a diversity of opinion concerning homosexuality in ancient Greece:

The other Greeks either do as the Boeotians do, where man and boy are joined as couples and live together, or like the Eleans, who get to enjoy the charms of boys by making them grateful; there are also those who wholly prevent boy-lovers from conversing with boys. [13] But Lycurgus' views were opposed to all of these: [...] if on the other hand someone seemed to lust after a boy's body, he laid down that this was the most shameful of all things and that in Lacedaemonia boy-lovers should keep their hands off boys [...] [14] It does not however surprise me that certain people do not believe this: in most of the Greek cities, the laws do not oppose mens' desire for boys.

Well, thanks for responding to my comment. The reason why I didn't go into too much detail was because I didn't think you would respond to my remarks, like so many other bloggers. Anyway, allow me to respond.

"The Athenians had laws to protect children and proscribed the death penalty to those who had sex with children.

You are of course wrong (but I won't waste too much time, since you offer no actual facts or arguments)."

No, you're the one who hasn't any legitimate arguments. The purpose of the aforementioned passage was to condemn the sexual exploitation of boys, which according to Aeschines, included pandering ("and surely he who hires, outrages"), in an attempt to bar Timarchus from serving in office because of his previous history as a catamite. Otherwise, even Aeschines admitted to being a homosexual pederast, however, unlike Timarchus, he did it for love, rather than money:

The distinction which I draw is this: to be in love with those who are beautiful and chaste is the experience of a kind-hearted and generous soul; but to hire for money and to indulge in licentiousness is the act of a man who is wanton and ill-bred.

"Just a little addendum from the Symposium of Xenophon (8,34). Xenophon was a 5th-4th c. Athenian and clearly contrasts Theban with Athenian attitudes towards pederasty."

This clearly ignores the fact that even Xenophon recognized that there was a diversity of opinion concerning homosexuality in ancient Greece:

The other Greeks either do as the Boeotians do, where man and boy are joined as couples and live together, or like the Eleans, who get to enjoy the charms of boys by making them grateful; there are also those who wholly prevent boy-lovers from conversing with boys. [13] But Lycurgus' views were opposed to all of these: [...] if on the other hand someone seemed to lust after a boy's body, he laid down that this was the most shameful of all things and that in Lacedaemonia boy-lovers should keep their hands off boys [...] [14] It does not however surprise me that certain people do not believe this: in most of the Greek cities, the laws do not oppose mens' desire for boys.

"As for homosexuality, the general Greek attitude is one of disapproval."

No, the ancient Greek attitude towards homosexuality was ambiguous, to say the least, with some approving of homosexuality and others disapproving of it.

"This is made evident e.g., by Aristotle citing the "Celts" as openly approving of male loves. If a large portion of Greeks approved of male loves, then why would he invoke the exotic Celts to make his point?"

You really need to stop quoting passages out of context. Aristotle is only speaking of war-like races, which didn't include most other Greeks. Otherwise, he also noted that some Greek city-states openly approved of homosexuality:

Now the Cretan arrangements for the public mess-tables are better than the Spartan [...] and the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex...

"Diodorus Siculus too is incredulous that Celtic men slept shamelessly with each other even though they had fine women in their country. Whether or not these stereotypes about Celts were true or not is irrelevant, as, by contrast, they reflect on negative Greek attitudes on the subject."

Again, you're selectively quoting sources that only support your false opinions on the subject. Some Greeks approved of homosexuality, whereas others did not. Some ancient Greek writers, such as Pseudo-Lucian, even praised and idealized homosexuality:

Marriage is a boon and a blessing to men when it meets with good fortune, while the love of boys, that pays court to the hallowed dues of friendship, I consider to be the privilege only of philosophy. Therefore all men should marry, but let only the wise be permitted to love boys, for perfect virtue grows least of all among women.

P.S. I hope I didn't double-post too much. I was having some trouble posting earlier.

You are being too general. Some Greeks approved of "chaste eros" between members of the same sex which can be hardly called homosexuality in the modern sense. Some of them saw it as indifferent to be the active participant. None that I know of expressed a view of approval of passive homosexuality.

Some ancient Greek writers, such as Pseudo-Lucian, even praised and idealized homosexuality:

Pseudo-Lucian was a Roman age writer of unknown identity who wrote in Greek. Your notion that he was Greek is not really supported.

The distinction which I draw is this: to be in love with those who are beautiful and chaste is the experience of a kind-hearted and generous soul; but to hire for money and to indulge in licentiousness is the act of a man who is wanton and ill-bred.

Again, you are conflating ancient Greek "eros" with homosexuality. Aeschines is condemning both prostitution (hiring for money) and sex ("licentiousness") in that relationship.

This clearly ignores the fact that even Xenophon recognized that there was a diversity of opinion concerning homosexuality in ancient Greece:

Indeed, and a handful of peoples (Boiotians, Eleans, and Cretans) are usually the ones referred to as approving of the practice.

Aristotle is only speaking of war-like races, which didn't include most other Greeks.

Are you saying that the Spartans were the only warlike Greeks, and Aristotle had to go outside the Greek world to find an example of a warlike race that openly (fanerw=s) esteem (tetimh/kasi) "male loves"?

Again, you're selectively quoting sources that only support your false opinions on the subject.

I'm not "selectively quoting sources". Diodorus Siculus wrote for a Greek and Roman audience and expressed incredulity at what was reported to be a Celtic practice. If it was "ok" to be gay in his audience or to actually prefer sleeping with men than with women, then the Celtic practice would not seem bizarre at all as he makes it out to be.

No, I'm not. I'm merely highlighting the fact that the ancient Greek attitude towards homosexuality was far more complex than a mere attitude of "general disapproval."

"Some Greeks approved of "chaste eros" between members of the same sex which can be hardly called homosexuality in the modern sense."

A "sophron eros" didn't necessarily exclude male-male sexual relations, as you wrongly contend. Numerous well-known pederastic relationships, such as that of Patroclus and Achilles, were explicitly homosexual, yet also regarded as chaste.

"Some of them saw it as indifferent to be the active participant. None that I know of expressed a view of approval of passive homosexuality."

Some of the ancient Greek writers also idealized homosexuality, such as Achilles Tatius. It is true that passive homosexuality was not approved of, but there were many writers who did not necessarily disapprove of passive homosexuality as well, such as Aristotle and pseudo-Aristotle.

"Pseudo-Lucian was a Roman age writer of unknown identity who wrote in Greek. Your notion that he was Greek is not really supported."

Hello? He was a Greek author who wrote in Greek in order to address a Greek-speaking audience. Your objection is beside the point. The existence of other Greek authors who idealized homosexuality, such as Achilles Tatius, indicates that there were many Greeks who approved of pederastic relations.

"Again, you are conflating ancient Greek "eros" with homosexuality. Aeschines is condemning both prostitution (hiring for money) and sex ("licentiousness") in that relationship."

Wrong, "licentiousness" merely referred to Timarchus' spendthrift lifestyle as a male concubine. The Greek notion of chastity was one of self-restraint, not sexual abstinence.

"Indeed, and a handful of peoples (Boiotians, Eleans, and Cretans) are usually the ones referred to as approving of the practice."

Yet throughout most of ancient Greece, there were no laws against pederasty or male prostitution, except as it related to political office. Again, my point was to merely emphasize that there was a diversity of opinion on the subject, not a climate of general disapproval as you falsely claim.

"Are you saying that the Spartans were the only warlike Greeks, and Aristotle had to go outside the Greek world to find an example of a warlike race that openly (fanerw=s) esteem (tetimh/kasi) "male loves"?"

The Spartans were the most warlike Greeks. But this quotation is beside the point, as nowhere in his writings does Aristotle ever condemn homosexuality; he even admits that homosexuality cannot be considered a vice.

You're only quoting those sources which only support your side of the argument, while ignoring those sources which contradict whatever you have to say.

"Diodorus Siculus wrote for a Greek and Roman audience and expressed incredulity at what was reported to be a Celtic practice. If it was "ok" to be gay in his audience or to actually prefer sleeping with men than with women, then the Celtic practice would not seem bizarre at all as he makes it out to be."

Diodorus was a Roman era Greek who may have embraced the Roman's greater aversion to homosexuality, or was maybe reacting to the Celtic lack of self-restraint in sexual matters.

Listen, I'm not denying that homosexuality may have been problematic for some writers. All I'm saying is that the ancient Greeks expressed a diversity of opinion about homosexuality, some saying it was "ok" and others disagreeing with it. However, there was no consensus on whether being gay was "ok" or not "ok," as you put it. For example, the 4th century Greek Stoic philosopher Zeno said:

"Do not make invidious comparisons between gay and nongay, male and female."

"Penetrate the thighs of a beloved child no more and no less than those of a non-beloved child, and neither those of a female any more or any less than those of a male. Since what is ﬁtting and appropriate for a beloved child is not different, but the same, as for a non-beloved child, and for females no differently than for males."

I'm way too late, but I'd like to point out that there's also Demosthenes' Against Androtion, speech 30, in which he says:

"Now it is worth your while, men of Athens, to study too the character of Solon, who framed this law, and to observe what care he took of the constitution in all the laws, how much more zealous indeed he was for the constitution than for the matter on which he was legislating. This may be seen in many ways, but especially from this law, which forbids persons guilty of prostitution to make speeches or to propose measures. For he saw that the majority of you do not avail yourselves of your right to speak, so that the prohibition seemed no great hardship, and he could have laid down many harsher penalties, if his object had been the chastisement of these offenders.

"Numerous well-known pederastic relationships, such as that of Patroclus and Achilles, were explicitly homosexual, yet also regarded as chaste."

What an insult to their memory!

But in his inner tent, an ampler space,Achilles slept; and in his warm embraceFair Diomede of the Lesbian race.Last, for Patroclus was the couch prepared,Whose nightly joys the beauteous Iphis shared;Achilles to his friend consign'd her charmsWhen Scyros fell before his conquering arms.

The Iliad, Book IX.

Also,

"A surprise to him was the relatively low number of male homosexual scenes of copulation: 13 to 15, as opposed to 82 heterosexual ones or, put another way, 18% of the total (using the higher figure). He had expected a stronger showing of the homosexual theme, "given the view scholarship has taken over the last century or so"Of her 393 vase paintings, 14% have a male homosexual content, in the form of gods pursuing mortal adolescents."

Which would mean only 55 vase paintings. Over 100,000 vases have been found in ancient Greece, which means that only 0.05% have homosexual content, an incredibly small number for a civilization where homosexuality was apparently common and accepted.

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.